1 2025:CGHC:14402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1991 of 2025 1 - Tijau Ram Patel S/o Firuram Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Post Ghivara, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajeshnandani Shukla D/o Ramlal Shukla Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Post Ghivara, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.03.28 16:37:15 +0530 2 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education OfÏcer Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 26.03.2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) by which the representation of the petitioners has been rejected. The petitioner is also seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to grant appointment to the petitioners on the post of teacher. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners rendered their services under the Jan Bhagidari Unnayan Scheme in the year 2001. Subsequently, in the year 2005, the State Government appointed the Shiksha Karmi/Contract teachers and 3 further decided not to take the services of the teachers working under the Jan Bhagidari Unnayan Scheme. By raising their grievance the petitioners are running pillar to post for redressal of their grievance and even they filed writ petitions as also the contempt petition and pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent authorities which was rejected by the order impugned in an illegal and arbitrary manner and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission and would submit that the petitioners rendered their services under the particular scheme and they have not been appointed in a duly selection process and as such they are not entitled for any relief. In the year 2002-03, the State Government had permitted Jan Bhagidari Samiti of various panchayats to engage teachers for a period of 2 years at the cost of the Panchayat and further 2 years will be extended on completion of the initial period of 2 years. It has also been stated while granting permission that in case any Government school will be opened in future the school run by Jan Bhagidari Samiti will be closed. The present writ petitioners are also appointed by the said Jan Bhagidari Samiti on their own and the petitioners are not duly appointed teachers of the State Government, hence the petitioners are not entitled for absorption of their service in the School Education Department. 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 4 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners rendered their service under the Jan Bhagidari Unnayan Scheme and they have not been appointed through a duly conducted selection process. From the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is apparent that in the year 2002-03, the State Government had permitted Jan Bhagidari Samiti of various panchayats to engage teachers for a period of 2 years at the cost of the Panchayat and further 2 years will be extended on completion of the initial period of 2 years. While granting permission it has been categorically informed that in case any Government school will be opened in future the school run by Jan Bhagidari Samiti will be closed. It is noteworthy to mention here that the petitioners herein are also appointed by the said Jan Bhagidari Samiti on their own and they are not duly appointed teachers of the State Government. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled for absorption of their service in the School Education Department. They failed to prove their case by placing cogent and sufÏcient material. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib